Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WXDWy-0001og-HN for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 17:40:24 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.214.176 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.176; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f176.google.com; Received: from mail-ob0-f176.google.com ([209.85.214.176]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WXDWw-0001J2-Re for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 17:40:24 +0000 Received: by mail-ob0-f176.google.com with SMTP id wp18so6861000obc.21 for ; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 10:40:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.176.9 with SMTP id ce9mr3266204oec.55.1396892417490; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 10:40:17 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.96.180 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 10:40:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <5342C833.5030906@gmail.com> <5342D1DB.8060203@monetize.io> <5342D9FA.8080102@monetize.io> Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 19:40:17 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: w-V7tpBGmfQRFIJaxTa7bvqaKB0 Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Brent Shambaugh Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0118226c5585b104f6775cc7 X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1WXDWw-0001J2-Re Cc: Bitcoin Development Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes? X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 17:40:24 -0000 --089e0118226c5585b104f6775cc7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It uses ~no electricity, it's not like mining. The primary resources it needs are disk space and bandwidth, after an intensive initial day or two of building the database. Actually, I wonder if we should start shipping (auditable) pre-baked databases calculated up to the last checkpoint so people can download them and boot up their node right away. Recalculating the entire thing from scratch every time isn't sustainable in the long run anyway. On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Brent Shambaugh wrote: > How difficult would it be to set up a node? Using lots of electricity at > home (if required) could be an issue, but I do have a Webfaction account. > > > On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrot= e: > >> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Mark Friedenbach >> wrote: >> > On 04/07/2014 09:57 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: >> >> That is an implementation issue=E2=80=94 mostly one that arises as an= indirect >> >> consequence of not having headers first and the parallel fetch, not a >> >> requirements issue. >> > >> > Oh, absolutely. But the question "why are people not running full >> > nodes?" has to do with the current implementation, not abstract >> > capabilities of a future version of the bitcoind code base. >> >> The distinction is very important because it's a matter of things we >> can and should fix vs things that cannot be fixed except by changing >> goals/incentives! Opposite approaches to handling them. >> >> When I read "resource requirements of a full node are moving beyond" I >> didn't extract from that that "there are implementation issues that >> need to be improved to make it work better for low resource users" due >> to the word "requirements". >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------ >> Put Bad Developers to Shame >> Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration >> Continuously Automate Build, Test & Deployment >> Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees >> _______________________________________________ >> Bitcoin-development mailing list >> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- > Put Bad Developers to Shame > Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration > Continuously Automate Build, Test & Deployment > Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > --089e0118226c5585b104f6775cc7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It uses ~no electricity, it's not like mining.
The primary resources it needs are disk space and bandwidth, af= ter an intensive initial day or two of building the database.
Actually, I wonder if we should start shipping (auditable) pre-b= aked databases calculated up to the last checkpoint so people can download = them and boot up their node right away. Recalculating the entire thing from= scratch every time isn't sustainable in the long run anyway.


On Mon,= Apr 7, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Brent Shambaugh <brent.shambaugh@gmail.co= m> wrote:
How difficult would it be t= o set up a node? Using lots of electricity at home (if required) could be a= n issue, but I do have a Webfaction account.

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com&= gt; wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Mark Friedenbach <mark@monetize.io> wrote:
> On 04/07/2014 09:57 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> That is an implementation issue=E2=80=94 mostly one that arises as= an indirect
>> consequence of not having headers first and the parallel fetch, no= t a
>> requirements issue.
>
> Oh, absolutely. But the question "why are people not running full=
> nodes?" has to do with the current implementation, not abstract > capabilities of a future version of the bitcoind code base.

The distinction is very important because it's a matter of things= we
can and should fix vs things that cannot be fixed except by changing
goals/incentives! =C2=A0Opposite approaches to handling them.

When I read "resource requirements of a full node are moving beyond&qu= ot; I
didn't extract from that that "there are implementation issues tha= t
need to be improved to make it work better for low resource users" due=
to the word "requirements".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---
Put Bad Developers to Shame
Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration
Continuously Automate Build, Test & Deployment
Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud.
http://p.= sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment


-----------------------------------------------------------= -------------------
Put Bad Developers to Shame
Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration
Continuously Automate Build, Test & Deployment
Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud.
http://p.= sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees
_________________________________________= ______
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment


--089e0118226c5585b104f6775cc7--